With the magazine industry in bad shape, newsweeklies are trying to imitate the one freakishly successful exception: The Economist. In a Vanity Fair article, Matt Pressman outlines four reasons why they can’t, using analogies like this one to explain: “The Economist is like that exotic coffee that comes from beans that have been eaten and shat out undigested by an Indonesian civet cat, and Time and Newsweek are like Starbucks — millions of people enjoy them, but it’s not a point of pride.” Pressman doesn’t mention that The Economist is the only magazine to have sent Dubner — or likely anyone — a pasty. [%comments]
Why There’s Only One Economist
TAGS: The Economist
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I think it’s pretty simple: It’s a matter of clever marketing combined with delivery of the expected in a rank-competition market.
The Economist is clearly positioned as an elitist magazine for a global(ized) readership. And of course, no matter how good or bad the economy is, there’s always a top one percent of global society. And of that percent, more than enough people are willing to subscribe for the Economist.
In this regard, the Economist compares to luxury goods like jewelery, high-end cars, yachts, top education, private jets etc.
There will always be a market for such clearly positioned things. Only the buyers change, depending on the economy.
Rob said, “when with hindsight they find they got it wrong – such as on Iraq – they put up their hand and say so.”
Erick said, “the Economist can be … dead wrong (supporting Bush, supporting the war in Iraq, tirelessly complaining about populist backlashes against bankers’ bonuses)
I do read the Economist occasionally when I can get it free, and I find that while it’s well-written it is frequently wrong on issues that matter not just to me but to the world and all the people in it.
Occasionally owning up after people have taken action based on one’s bad information doesn’t make one a good counsellor.
I believe The Onion (as always) was there first:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34138
“The Economist says! The Economist says! I read The Economist! Aren’t I cool? Aren’t you impressed with me?”
“What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can’t handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That’s because you’re not as smart or sophisticated as me.”
I like The Economist, mainly because they are one of the few mags to actually do a little research before writing an article. Time and the like are basically entertainment, and little more.
While I don’t agree with every editorial stance, and I find the Economist to be perhaps the best source of general print news in English.
Given the state of today’s newspapers and the low standards and bias one sees in other news weeklies. it’s no wonder that they’re doing so well. Their bias is clear and their analysis thoughtful.
And…I say this as a very socialist leaning reader.
A great example of The Economist’s perfect sense of subtle humor was after the Simpsons episode several years ago where Homer ends up in first class, pulls a magazine out of the seat pocket, and proclaims, “Look at me, I’m reading The Economist! Did you know Indonesia is at a crossroads?” and in the next episode I remember reading a headline that mentioned Indonesia being at a crossroads, without directly referencing the Simpsons. I burst out laughing. All class.
After reading this comment thread I’m inspired to subscribe. I thoroughly enjoy The Economist and I’d like to do my small part in keeping it around and strong for a long time to come.
(The Economist’s podcasts are great too and highly recommended)
Lewis,
Every Economist article on Indonesia now references a “crossroads” of some sort. I think the last headline was “Indonesia: Beyond the crossroads.” They’re clever lads.
The Economist is also refreshing in that it avoids the rah-rah patriotism that so many publications fall into out of habit.